- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
- Vacant (by Lozano)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)
Friday, November 3, 2017
Bright and Gloomy Forecasts- GSR rights, and "The university is no better off,” Wilton added. “It makes not one cent difference.”
Student workers deserve more complete picture of union benefits
..."current and former Graduate Student Researchers (GSRs) at UC Berkeley, we are replying to a recent campuswide email from the UC administration regarding GSR unionization. Sent by Graduate Division Dean Fiona Doyle on Oct. 23, with the subject “Message Regarding Union Representation for Graduate Student Researchers,” the message responded to the recent passage of SB 201, a bill granting Graduate Student Researchers in California the right to unionize. Dean Doyle wrote that “UC supports your right to decide for yourself whether unionization is beneficial for you. That choice is yours. UC believes this choice should be well informed.”
But does the UC administration really support our right as GSRs to decide for ourselves whether we want to form a union? And do the administration’s emails give us a complete picture of what GSR unionization means?
The UC administration has lobbied against GSR/RA collective bargaining rights"...
"The Ivy League Has An Unexpected Friend In Donald Trump Their graduate students are trying to unionize. The president may have already stopped them." | HuffPost
And, A claim the Cal deficit cut in half:
But then check out this other story with a gloomy forecast:
..."Moving some of Cal Athletics’ debt onto the campus’s books, if implemented, would only change where the debt service payments are located, Powell said. The cuts will still have to be made somewhere, he added.
“That’s just moving deck chairs around the Titanic,” said John Wilton, former campus vice chancellor for administration and finance, of a potential debt transfer in a recent interview with The Daily Californian. As vice chancellor for administration and finance, Wilton oversaw the creation of a new funding model for California Memorial Stadium.
“The university is no better off,” Wilton added. “It makes not one cent difference.”"
But SJ Merc give it this headline: "Big relief: Cal to move a portion of stadium debt off athletic department’s books"
Includes: "Details of the debt transfer haven’t been finalized, said spokesman Dan Mogulof, who attended the meeting.
But the move is potentially a game-changer for the Bears in matters ranging from coaching salaries and recruiting budgets to the hiring of a new athletic director.
As such, it has the potential to impact the Pac-12:
Cal is the conference’s premier public university, with a huge alumni base and global reach. A fiscally stable and competitively successful athletic department (specifically, the football and men’s basketball programs) would carry far-reaching benefits.
There is no timetable for the implementation of the debt transfer, nor did Christ reveal the structure: Will it be raw dollars or a percentage? And will it come from the overall debt or the annual debt service?
But it figures to be a significant percentage."
:UC Berkeley to tap academic funds to help bail out Memorial Stadium
"The campus would help pay off only the retrofit debt on the stadium, Mogulof said. He said officials are still trying to determine what portion of the stadium’s $314 million debt comes from the seismic overhaul.
However, the figure is expected to amount to at least 60 percent of the total debt, or $188 million, said one campus source, speaking on condition of anonymity."
One more time ,we point to this earlier article: to:https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/nicholas-dirks-life-fault-line
", while Dirks knew he was taking on a major challenge, it wasn’t until later that he realised this constrained funding environment was now Berkeley’s “new normal”.
“Everyone thought [Berkeley’s funding] would rebound – the economy had rebounded, so therefore state funding should as well,” he explains. “In fact, today [the state contribution] is 11 per cent.”
To understand this ongoing decline, it is necessary to look at politics as well as economics, and, in particular, at Berkeley’s complex, multilayered governance structure.
As part of the overarching University of California system, the chancellor is beholden to the system’s board of 24 politically appointed regents and its president, currently the former governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano. The latter’s role is to represent all the UC campuses in negotiations with the state governor over issues such as funding, but she also retains control over executive pay, tuition fees and the ratio of in-state and out-of-state students (the latter pay more, and as such can help to balance the books).
So while, at Columbia, it had been part of Dirks’ job to set tuition fees, at Berkeley, the figure “had to be approved by the regents, who were advised by the president. But it was also a negotiation with [California’s] governor, and although we made clear our need for greater revenue…we didn’t get it, and, at a high level, I had almost no control over that.”
If he did not control key income streams, then he did at least have control over expenditure.
“That’s the division of labour,” Dirks jokes. But, again, that was not quite as simple as it sounds because of another aspect of Berkeley’s governance structure – the powerful faculty representation.
The engaged nature of Berkeley academics, the unique culture of the place and a commitment to its fabled role as a public institution are all great points of pride for the institution. This can be a powerful strength: for example, Berkeley excels at attracting the most talented young researchers and holding on to them, despite the higher salaries available elsewhere."
And yes U house and Blake house are not being used for student, staff or faculty housing, could they be? - but doubt alot of folks care if Chancellor lives on campus, is that real issue?
Posted by cloudminder